Flagpole wrote:
kibitzer wrote:
Strangely enough (but not for the first time!), I agree with DG here. An argument can be productive only if all its participants can say, sincerely, "But I could be wrong." If you don't have that, then there's no argument: At most, you have reciprocal statements of "religious" belief. The best you can hope for in that situation is that people will politely wait their turns to talk; they certainly won't be listening.
“He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion... Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them...he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.” J.S. Mill
Yes, yes, I can already hear people saying that "DG should apply that reasoning to himself!" Regardless of whether he can do that or he can't, the point is still valid.
Well, you are wrong to agree with DG here.
Your assertion that an argument can be productive only if all its participants can say, sincerely, "But I could be wrong" is faulty big time. "Hey, that grown man is beating that 6 year old girl to within an inch of her life. I'd better argue with him. But I could be wrong". Umm...no.
Some things are universally inherently wrong. Believing that Donald Trump is good for American is inherently wrong, and fortunately because we are a rule of law nation, he will be forced to resign or he will be impeached and convicted and removed.
His analogy (that then you agree with) is also a bad one. Global Warming isn't akin to a religion at all. It is the opposite of that. It is based on science and facts. It is akin to religion to believe it ISN'T happening.
A bit of a logical fallacy here as you appeal to the extreme although Kibitzer did largely set himself up for such a response. As for the bolded comment, this moral absolutism. See Aquinas for more. There are schools of thought that refute that statement.
